• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Jack Hays said:
Fine, but beside the point. Realization that it's not a choice, but like race is something you're born with, made it politically potent and enabled the civil rights analogy.
Click to expand...

Not really. That acceptance that it isn't a choice seems to come after support from individuals is gained for many people that I've seen. It doesn't seem to really be all that big of a factor for many people, just an extra.
 
Jack Hays said:
Too simplistic.
Click to expand...

It really is that simple. Marriage is the legal method of recognizing spousal relationships. There is nothing about being a spouse that requires two people of the opposite sex, just as there is nothing about being a spouse (legally) that requires two people of the same race. It honestly is legally that simple.
 
Lakryte said:
It is not cheaper, nor is it more efficient, for it to come from that government. That is the false assumption you are basing your entire opinion on.

You don't have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars in fees to create a government recognized contract that establishes next of kin. In some counties here in CA a marriage license costs $100, so your $30 figure isn't even accurate for everyone either. As to your last point, if you don't want your friend to be next of kin, don't assign him as such in your will.

In the UK, you can establish anyone you want to be next of kin. If you don't trust your family, you are not forced to be at their whims and can have a close friend be your next of kin. Here in the U.S. the fact you cannot do that only further proves the point that government is inept. Government restrictions on private contracts making them less efficient is a problem with government, not private contracts.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is cheaper and more efficient to have a single document, the marriage license, to deal with all the issues that come up with spouses.

It cost me 7 years ago $30. In order to set up a will, a power of attorney, and other legal documentation, it could cost at least $300 just for one of these. Multiple of these is upwards of $1000+. And, none of those things mentioned can be used to give me recognition within the military, which is where many of the benefits of my marriage that I've seen so far have come from. Heck, my marriage license has saved me from having to go to court for a name change on my SS (just bring the marriage certificate/license).

We do not live in the UK. This is the US. But they still do have legal spouses that are set up much like ours, giving them automatic access to certain rights and privileges.
 
Lakryte said:
That's not true everywhere, which was my point. I never denied that somewhere it costs $30, so your point is moot.

A will very much can establish a next of kin relationship. Next of kin relationships also matter after death (for example, the administrator of the estate). Inheritance automatically goes to next of kind, unless the will states otherwise.

For a living next of kin relationship (such as in the event of entering a vegetative state) that would be even easier. Just say "I hereby appoint so-and-so as my next of kin" and have both parties sign. Simple as that. That would encompass any law or policy that requires a next of kin. In the United Kingdom, the process is similar to that.
Click to expand...

And even at $100, that is less than it cost to make a will through a lawyer, let alone much of the other paperwork that is also covered.

And there are no legal papers via a lawyer that establish a legally recognized kinship here in the US without also having the government involved.
 
roguenuke said:
It absolutely is cheaper and more efficient to have a single document, the marriage license, to deal with all the issues that come up with spouses.
Click to expand...
Now you are moving the goalposts from "establishing next of kin" to "anything that has to do with spouses." It does not cost $300 to create a contract that says "so-and-so is my next of kin under the law" and sign it. It costs nothing, unless government makes the process more difficult by imposing additional fees.

I agree with you on a lot of things, but in this case you seem to just be missing the point (which was really just a minor aside).
 
roguenuke said:
And even at $100, that is less than it cost to make a will through a lawyer, let alone much of the other paperwork that is also covered.

And there are no legal papers via a lawyer that establish a legally recognized kinship here in the US without also having the government involved.
Click to expand...
Why do you consistently make strawman arguments? When did I ever say the government is not involved in legally recognized kinship in the United States? Quote where you believe I claimed such.
 
roguenuke said:
Who cares if you "buy" it or not. It is part of history. Just because you don't want to believe people doesn't mean it didn't happen. Is it possible that it didn't? Sure. But there are reports of same sex marriage so it is no less believable than many other things that we have reports of happening in the past, including stand in marriages (someone else taking one of the spouses' places for the wedding/marriage for whatever reason, agreeing in their place and taking on their responsibilities as a spouse for as long as needed) or a woman with multiple husbands (only reported in maybe one culture in history).
Click to expand...

Unless you can provide some documentation I'll have to call your claim bogus. Same sex relationships? Sure. Same sex marriages, socially sanctioned and accepted? Not so much.
 
roguenuke said:
Not really. That acceptance that it isn't a choice seems to come after support from individuals is gained for many people that I've seen. It doesn't seem to really be all that big of a factor for many people, just an extra.
Click to expand...

It was the fundamental change for most people.
 
roguenuke said:
It really is that simple. Marriage is the legal method of recognizing spousal relationships. There is nothing about being a spouse that requires two people of the opposite sex, just as there is nothing about being a spouse (legally) that requires two people of the same race. It honestly is legally that simple.
Click to expand...

Now we have come full circle. Loving was about access to an extant institution. The debate about same sex marriage has been about creation of a new institution.
 
Lakryte said:
Unfortunately a lot of bigots have jumped onto "there should just be no marriage licenses at all" bandwagon as a cover for their homophobia. I personally favor same-sex marriage because it is the best realistic solution. Idealistically I prefer that government doesn't get into social affairs with licenses and the like at all, but that isn't going to happen as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Funny how they all suddenly, just as SSM becomes a reality, wish to do away with marriage altogether. You'd think in order to mask how not at all coincidental this is, they'd have picked a slightly different time to start with these pleas. Then again, they aren't the most adept at seeing how their tactics will look from others' point of view, or relating to others period.
 
Lakryte said:
Now you are moving the goalposts from "establishing next of kin" to "anything that has to do with spouses." It does not cost $300 to create a contract that says "so-and-so is my next of kin under the law" and sign it. It costs nothing, unless government makes the process more difficult by imposing additional fees.

I agree with you on a lot of things, but in this case you seem to just be missing the point (which was really just a minor aside).
Click to expand...

It would still have to be recognized by the government. But since such legal paperwork doesn't exist in the US, then you have no idea how much it would cost. It would almost certainly have to be notarized though, which costs money for most people.

But the fact that legal marriage sets up those other things I talked about, established by the government and laws, means that the government would either a) still be involved, the same as before or b) those things would have to be done another way, meaning it would cost more money.

I'm fine with setting up paperwork that could make someone else a closest next of kin without marriage, in the manner you describe, but having it available alongside marriage, not by disestablishing it. Nor do I believe that it would be done without the government. It would still have to be recognized by the government, so there is no reason the government shouldn't do it, the same as they do birth certificates, file adoption records, and set up marriages. They almost certainly will require fees, despite what you may not like. But it also would not remove government from marriages or take the place of marriages.
 
Jack Hays said:
Now we have come full circle. Loving was about access to an extant institution. The debate about same sex marriage has been about creation of a new institution.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is about access to an already existing institution, marriage, despite what you keep trying to claim. Marriage already exists. Same sex couples are just asking to enter into it legally, just as mixed race couples did with Loving. It is not a new institution at all.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was the fundamental change for most people.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was really just a realization for many. Some simply grew close to or got to know better someone who is gay, possibly someone they always knew but just found out they were gay and it dawned on them that they didn't really have a good reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. Others were raised to believe that it wasn't an issue, like me, and how I am raising my children.
 
Jack Hays said:
Now you have a chicken vs egg question.
Click to expand...

Not really. You can generally judge how well your friends and family will take you telling them you are gay or some other news like it. I know how this feels in a way because I knew my parents wouldn't have any issue with me dating someone of a different race, but that my grandparents would not like it at all, possibly even disown me for it, so I didn't share it with them when I started dating someone in high school who was African American. Had we gotten more serious than a high school relationship or had my grandparents lived closer to us, I would have told them, no matter the consequences. I also wouldn't have lied to them had they asked (as they did my father when he told them he was getting married to my mother).

So then people come out to their family and friends, many of which will accept them (despite some who won't/don't). Then, even if they are against same sex couples getting married prior to their loved one coming out, they will likely grow to support seeing their loved one happy, particularly if they see them in a loving, committed relationship. Then those loved ones will start to share their experiences and support for their loved ones with people they know and who likely respect their feelings, who then start to see where others are coming from.

It is much more difficult to see the other side on this issue because in reality the lives of those who are against same sex couples getting married are not affected by same sex couples getting married, not in a measurable way. It is nothing more than their beliefs being offended, which is something that they do not have a right not to have happen.
 
Lakryte said:
Why do you consistently make strawman arguments? When did I ever say the government is not involved in legally recognized kinship in the United States? Quote where you believe I claimed such.
Click to expand...

If the government is still involved, then what would be the point? They would still decide which ones they recognized.

And I still don't see where you think that it wouldn't cost money to set these up, even if it is just a single document. They would still have to have it notarized, which likely means a fee. Plus, I don't see the government not requiring a fee to at least file the paperwork either.
 
roguenuke said:
Same sex marriage is about access to an already existing institution, marriage, despite what you keep trying to claim. Marriage already exists. Same sex couples are just asking to enter into it legally, just as mixed race couples did with Loving. It is not a new institution at all.
Click to expand...

Since the previous definition of marriage was heterosexual, I don't agree.
 
Jack Hays said:
Since the previous definition of marriage was heterosexual, I don't agree.
Click to expand...

There is no set definition of marriage except that it establishes a legal relationship of kins known as spouses. Restrictions on marriage do not describe what marriage is, not when those restrictions do not apply universally. I can claim to be married without being legally married so long as I don't do it on legal documentation. Marriage is a concept, not a concrete thing.

It can easily be said that the definition of marriage prior to Loving was two people of the same race so those mixed race couples were trying to create a new institution, interracial marriage.

It doesn't matter if you don't personally agree. You cannot prove differently. Legally, it is the same institution, which is proven by the fact that they use the exact same marriage license that opposite sex couples do, are covered under the exact same laws.
 
roguenuke said:
There is no set definition of marriage except that it establishes a legal relationship of kins known as spouses. Restrictions on marriage do not describe what marriage is, not when those restrictions do not apply universally. I can claim to be married without being legally married so long as I don't do it on legal documentation. Marriage is a concept, not a concrete thing.

It can easily be said that the definition of marriage prior to Loving was two people of the same race so those mixed race couples were trying to create a new institution, interracial marriage.

It doesn't matter if you don't personally agree. You cannot prove differently. Legally, it is the same institution, which is proven by the fact that they use the exact same marriage license that opposite sex couples do, are covered under the exact same laws.
Click to expand...

Even before Loving marriage between races was legal in most of the US.
 
Anthony60 said:
Gee, what a well reasoned argument you make. Almost like Swiss Cheese. Except Swiss Cheese has at least some substance.
Click to expand...

Weird how my argument has won over 40 times and yours has only won like twice.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, this is not solely based on her looks, though she is an ugly beast. This woman is trying to bring down my country. She is my enemy. An enemy of the Constitution. I draw no quarter for such a beast. She is human debris, that which seeks to destroy us. A hound from hell. She is a pitiful, disgusting human being. And I use that term loosely.
Click to expand...

Ok, seriously, I hate to be that Godwin guy, but holy ****ing **** dude. Get yourself some help. This sort of language is straight out of every precursor to genocide in history.
 
Jack Hays said:
Even before Loving marriage between races was legal in most of the US.
Click to expand...

We're over 50% for same-sex marriage in terms of population, and SCOTUS is still punting. The similarities continue!
 
Lakryte said:
Of course the recognition comes from the government. I never argued otherwise, and I even explicitly stated that in my post. Reread what I wrote:

Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recognized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.

My point, which was very clear, is that government recognizes documentation that it does not itself create or issue. Government very easily can recognize legal kinship through a private contract. It does all the time in something called a will.
Click to expand...

So, put your money where your libertarian mouth is. All the things you mention can be done with a private contract. So make one. Start your own marriage contract firm. Offer marriage contracts that do everything the government one does for less money and less hassle. Run them out of business with a superior product. Surely the market will gravitate towards your much better option.
 
Jack Hays said:
Even before Loving marriage between races was legal in most of the US.
Click to expand...

Loving v Virginia only affirmed to all states that interracial marriage was a right. Same as SSM. Those that defined marriage made a mistake. The courts are simply correcting the mistake made by others that had no right to define marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom